! !
冤
!
! ! ! S.T.
for All : !
I am working as a self-taught Justice……!
!
Ten years ago, I left Univ. of Sydney ( Major: International Studies ) and chose Canada as my destination country. Ten years later, I found myself in a position to correct an overall institutional failure in the defense of Justice.
!
I am a victim of malicious prosecution in relation to the landlord and tenant ( roommate) dispute. It has occurred when the police lay a criminal charge without submitting proof of video/camera surveillance data to support their report — which is often full of false statements and fabricated facts against the weak class people.They are not “factual errors”, but a result of tampering, hiding and destroying evidence.
!
It has occurred when the police take the position to cover up the rich’s conduct of illicit activities —-for example, theft of luggage, fraud, tax evasion, unlicensed short-term rentals, public mischief, sexual harassment —- which amounts to obstruction of justice .
!
It has occurred when the police can misuse a house right — often under an “UNPROVED” security concern— to prevent an innocent renter from retrieving his/her tenancy or luggage at the rental unit. Therefore, the vulnerable renters suffer not only the loss of housing, but also the loss of all their belongings. The damage is especially devastating to the singles who often find no avenue to complain and to investigate when their access to the building’s footage is wholly denied by the police and property office. Many of them are unfairly charged with a criminal offence after having lost everything.
!
My experience tells that 35 million Canadians are suffering a potential risk of being maliciously charged without proof of surveillance camera data. Among them, over 5 million are from the weak class who would suffer no affordable housing and legal assistance to fight against the corrupt police ( who either abuse their authority or obstruct justice or both). Most of time, they have to fight on the street.
!
Under the excuse of “ no mandate” or “ no motive ”, there will be no Ontario /Quebec /BC lawyer in private practice or free legal clinic to help them fight the corrupt police. Instead, they are referred to Access ProBONA who then passed the bucket to Justice Access Center where they find no legal representation but self-help services are waiting.
!
!
The unspoken rule is: Most likely, a Canadian lawyer would definitely fight for the rich or powerful— despite his/her case has no merit at all. Well, a Canadian lawyer would definitely not fight for the poor — no matter how virtuous they are or how public their concern is.
!
Isn’t this crazy legal and justice system forcing a low-income victim into a selftaught Justice?
!
I am one of those victims who have been deprived of all opportunities to develop a professional career, but involuntarily become a self-taught justice based at home. To us, “Jesus is justice , to love is to be just". To us, justice is our daily bread. Either we die from hunger for justice , or we fight.
!
Well, different than others, I have much better analytical skills— even better than some of the lawyers and judges who earned a degree from a second -class university. As a pioneering visual artist, I am proud of being truthful to myself and others because if I am not, I cannot create. My work and concept, speak the power of art, too. Being jobless and homeless, I am independent of any institutional and partisan influence in making a decision. That is, I will prove to you what is “Real Justice” in each and every single JUDGMENT I made on my case or the world’s.
!
To save all, I endeavor to challenge the broken system on the basis of my common sense, knowledge, conscience, a sense of philosophical and aesthetic views, and spiritual connection to GOD. I fight for a more equatable result that truly benefits all. In eastern philosophical term, “ the rich” and “ the poor” are interchangeable— depending on the circumstance. Just imagine 17 years ago, I was a young girl sitting with one of the richest men in Cologny, Geneva for a happy breakfast. Just recall when was the last time you had lost your precious house, car, and beloved one in a wildfire or flood.
!
We are equal before “ JUSTICE”. We are equal before the law. We are equal before the broken system.
!
I publish this not because I am eager to, but because I was there. I publish this not because I want to, but because you want, too. Without knowing where we are, we cannot find the real hope and solution — a feminist power to reverse the unjust. ( word: 817)
!
!
Case of Example
! Part I - Statement ( Regina vs. Ms. Chen File# 28767 ) ! 1. The Appellant, Qiu Ling Chen ( AKA S.T.) , appeals from a determination of the crown counsel Mary Salaysay of the Provincial Criminal Court dated Oct. 30, 2019, ordering the prosecution to be “Stayed” rather than “ Withdrawn”.
!
Part II - Overview
!
2. On May 16, 2019, the crown counsel approved the prosecution “Assault ” against the Appellant when : a) the Appellant herself is a victim of a reported“rental fraud” and “theft of luggage” by the accuser, Property Manager of the building, and the tenant Mr. Joseph Gianunzio. ; b) the Appellant was denied access to surveillance camera data and other charter rights at the time of arrest. ( See Details of Complaint to OPCC, Part I to Part III and Answers to Le Roux’s questions)
!
3. The Appellant maintained that surveillance cameras are installed to both the premise’s public entrance and unit, as clearly showed in two pictures, but not revealed in the police report nor on the trial.
!
4. The Appellant also maintained that the crown consul’s decision was not rendered in accordance with natural justice and that the decision is biased.
!
Part III- Facts 5. The Appellant indeed asked for footage again before the crown counsel on the May 30 appearance hearing, but did not receive a response via a LSLAP law student until Oct 29, 2019 —one day before the trial. There is no police’s search warrant (to seize footage or compel surrender) attached to this email reply. 6. The trial was booked 4 months ago by a LSLAP law student , but did not actually happen. A decision of “Stayed the charge” was rendered when neither the police nor the accuser attended the trial and gave out testimonies before the trial judge.
!
!
7. By definition, there is a difference between “ Stayed” and “Withdrawn”. LawFacts, a legal information resource from legal Aid Ontario states: The decision by the Crown to stay or withdraw charges means they discontinue the prosecution. In both situations, once your charges are withdrawn or stayed by the Crown, you don’t have to go back to court. However, there is one important difference. Stayed charges can be “brought back to life” within one year of the day they are stayed. While this tends to be rare, you should know that if you’re charged with new offences during the one year period after you’ve had charges stayed, the stayed charges could be brought back and the Crown could prosecute you on those same charges again. If charges are withdrawn, the prosecution of those charges is
!
finished and those same charges can never be brought back.
8. In our case, “Stayed the charge” indicates that: a)
the crown counsel has subtly sustained a groundless charge whose burden of proof is never relieved by the accusers.
b) on one hand, the Appellant is not given a fair opportunity to defend herself and cross -examine the accusers and police officers in the courthouse, while on the other hand, both the accuser and the police are given “another opportunity” to bring back an uncorroborated charge against the Appellant within one year time . c)
!
literally, the accusers’ and the police’s misconducts and various violations are covered up in the crown counsel’s decision.
9. Was it just ?
!
Part IV - Issues and Argument The issues on the appeal are : 10. Was it morally correct for the police and crown counsel to take the investigation of “Assault” overriding that of “ Theft of Luggage ” and “Fraud” when surveillance camera is available for proof ?
!
Argument: Report to Crown Consul disclosed that the Caucasian accuser Ms. Pretty and tenant Mr. Gianunzio caused the Appellant, a single woman on the job training, to
!
be homeless and jobless and denied access to her luggage. The Appellant’s response, be offensive or not, stems from the accusers’ fraudulent scheme that created the scene for conflict. Our common sense tells that this life-threatening situation faced by the Appellant as a vulnerable victim is considered more urgent than a charge of “Assault” when the accuser actually has no domestic relationship with the Appellant. And the presence of surveillance camera would easily determine the responsibilities of the party who committed “fraud” or “theft of luggage” to harm the Appellant. Then, why the police and crown counsel proceeded with investigation into an unseen offence of “Assault” rather than the ones that can be seen on the screen ? The plausible answer can only be that they have abused their authority and provided discriminative services against the weak class people or people with skin color. The “impartiality" principle set out in the police’s professional code suggests:
!
As a s police servcie, we must show impartiality throughout all our dealings with colleagues, partners, and members of the public. This is achieved by being unprejudiced, fair and objective. We consider different sides of a situation and
!
ensure that each side is given equal consideration. In our case, it is morally wrong for the police and crown counsel to take the
investigation of Assault overriding that of “ Fraud” and “ Theft of Luggage”.
!
11. Was surveillance camera data exempted from criminal investigation in Canada?
!
Argument : In North America, domestic video surveillance ( or digital information) is not exempted from criminal investigation. In an article published by Susan Lazaruk on Vancouver Sun in Apr 2016, “Canvasing for video is something investigators do in almost very incident and in many cases police manage to locate something.”The police can ask for footage and compel surrender with a search warrant or seize it when they fear the evidence may be destroyed. But, in our case, the police officers have not only deliberately failed the Appellant as the vulnerable Asian renter to access the footage before and during the trial, but showed no intent of exhausting their effort in obtaining the footage. Instead , the police has allowed the Caucasian accusers to dump false accusations for defamation of the Appellant’s character…….. It is more clear than not
!
that the police officers’ actions are intended to destroy evidence in favor of the renter and further her venerability to a fair proceeding…….It is more clear than not that the charge was laid to cover up the property manager and Mr.Giannunzio’ wrongdoing and punish the whistleblower. Meanwhile, the crown counsel is not exempted from duty to seize footage as evidence when he/she agreed with the existence of surveillance cameras on the May 30 hearing. The principle of natural justice pertaining to“ Duty to consider all the evidence”states:
!
The decision maker is required to consider all of the relevant evidence and
!
information pertaining to a specific case.
12. Was the footage requested by the Appellant material to the trial ?
!
Argument: The Appellant’s complaint to OPCC clearly stated “there is a reasonable possibility that the information could be useful to the accused in making full answer and defence.” The footage would have captured: i) “three short-term renters” (as opposed to “one tenant” reported by the police) lived in the unit together with the tenant and his 2-year daughter; ii ) the male police officer destroyed a piece of evidence material to trial ; iii) an all-party’s phone talk ( at 1:21pm) was made in the lobby area—- as opposed to the property manager’s allegation of being assaulted in the storage unit. In particular, LSLAP has informed the crown counsel that the footage is material to the trial— for example, prove the accuser’s malicious intent to lay the charge. Therefore, the burden is upon the crown counsel to prove that the information was “irrelevant”.
!
13. Was the Appellant allowed a fair proceeding , or did the crown counsel inform“ no footage” on the last minute, deny the Appellant’s only opportunity to present her case and cross -examine the accuser and police, the refusal of the crown counsel to hear the Appellant’s submission , constitutes breaches of the principles of natural justice ?
!
Argument: The crown counsel misled the Appellant by stating in Oct 29 email that “ it appears that we be proceeding to trail”. ( page 6, Attachment 4, Part II, Details of Complaint to OPCC ) Contrary to her email reply, there was no a trial proceeding the
!
next day. Neither the accusers nor police showed up to swear truth of testimonies before the trial judge. Their response as such raised a reasonable doubt about the truthfulness of their statements made in the police report. Nor did the police and crown counsel seize the footage with a search warrant to facilitate the Appellant to make full answer and defence. The interventions of the crown counsel, possibly under the accusers’ instruction, have resulted in such procedural failings of “no footage, no accuser’s testimonies, and no defence being submitted to the trial.” All of which is in violation of the principle of natural justice in regards to“ Opportunity to present one’s case”, which states:
!
The applicant ( now the Appellant) must be provided with an opportunity to present whatever evidence they wish to be considered.
!
14. Was the Appellant correct in her submission that the crown counsel did not conduct the trial in procedurally fair manner , and the procedural failings disadvantage the Appellant?
!
Argument: In face of a three -“ NO” trial ( no footage, no accusers’ testimonies, and no defence), the crown counsel still rendered a decision backing up the accuser’s grounds for the charge and the possibility of “bring back the charge to life”—— when relief of burden of proof has been failed on the part of the accusers. Was it just ? The decision has nonetheless led to the fourth NO: a case of NO MERIT at all. And the crown counsel’s discretion, revealing no moral standing against the vicious, is thus challenged in this appeal.
!
15. Did the decision made by the crown counsel raise a reasonable concern that the crown counsel was acting on biased presumptions related to the Appellant’s ethnic and national origins, financial statute, contrary to the Human Rights Code?
!
Argument: In this appeal, the crown counsel’s discretion in determining a case of Ms. White vs. Ms. Yellow /Skin Color is challenged. Her decision was premised solidly on the contention that the statements of the Caucasian landlord and property manager are truthful, without proof or evidence, while the Yellow renter’s is false —despite it can
!
be proved on the screen. “The principles of natural justice concern the general manner in which a decision is made. “ A decision that is rendered in favor of or discriminate against one party’s skin color, national background, financial and social status, and other history of offenses is not simply biased, but erred. In particular, a biased/erred decision with the opportunity to lead the accused to be maliciously charged again in life is ultimately in breach of the Human Rights Code, which states: Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of place of origin, colour, ethnic, origin, or citizenship.
!
- Human Rights Code, s. 1
16. Does a biased/erred judgment do any harm to the achievement of public good ?
!
Argument: In our case, Mary Salaysay’s determination is found in support of grounds for charge as described in the police report —- which falsely stated that 1 roommate rather than 3 lived in the one- bedroom apartment, which is to : i) arbitrarily alter the nature of tenancy and feel free to evict a tenant as a “roommate” in case of transferred tenancy. ii) fail the Inspection Unit of City of Vancouver to supervise suspicious acts in violation of municipal by-law and/or Real Estate Services Act ( RESA) iii) fail the Ministry of Children and Family Development to take immediate action to protect the 2-year kid who is “forced” to live in the living room’s corner with three strangers. iv) result in distorted municipal policies in housing, construction, and family development.
!
Part V - Conclusion: The case has no merit and the crown counsel’s decision is not rendered in accordance with natural justice.
!
17. “A judge (crown counsel) should approach the case with an open mind, and act fairly and impartially. Whatever else may be said about whether its decision is right or wrong, any reasonable person appearing before the court must be given the
!
impression by the conduct and demeanor of the court that it has in fact acted fairly, impartially and judicially.” ( Appeal Factum, 2013, Lawyer Joseph Kary ) - Golomb v. College of Physicians & Surgeons (Ontario) 12 O.R. (2d) 73, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 25, 1976 CarswellOnt 819 (Ont. Div. Ct.)
!
18. “It is not merely of some importance but of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” ( Appeal Factum, 2013, Lawyer Joseph Kary ) - R. v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 K.B. 256 at 259 - Shoppers Mortgage & Loan Corporation v. Health First Wellington Square Ltd.(1995), 23 O.R. (3d) 362, 124 D.L.R. (4th) 440 (C.A.) at para 30
!
19. The Appellant submitted this appeal ( or read it as Defence ) in writing and ask for the correction of the biased/erred decision at the Crown Office:
!
- to Withdraw the charge of “ Assault”. - to punish the real offenders.
!
20. To prevent reoccurrence, the Appellant request the Attorney General to direct additional legal effort to achieve the following :
!
- Impose the installation of 24-hour camera surveillance to all the rental premises (incl. common areas, storage rooms and shared accommodation).
- Ensure all parties’ equal access to both private and public surveillance camera data in case of dispute or emergency without obstruction. The party whoobstructed another’s access to footage shall receive severer penalty than obstructing justice.
- The removal of the renter’s luggage must be legitimized with a court order and recorded in a camera ( cellphone camera is acceptable) .
- Prohibit the laying of criminal charge without proof of surveillance camera data in
!
the rental premise.
_____________________________________________! All of which is respectfully submitted on Dec 23, 2019.
!
F r
! ! ! ! !
u
!
! !
!
! !
! Pursuant to Section 5 , 10 and 77 of Police Act and s.139 of Criminal Code of Canada OPCC File: 2019-17111 Jan 8 , 2020 To :
And to :
Cc: Re:
!
Mr. Rein Le Roux or Elizabeth ( OPCC Analyst) Chief Constable ( Discipline Authority) c/o Vancouver /Toronto Police Department Professional Standard Section Public media /city hall/church groups Ms. Q. L. Chen( AKA S.T.) on behalf of all victims Vs. Regina
As a case of example, a civilian-based complaint ( Part I to Part III, 5 attachments, My Answers to OPCC Questions, 28 pages ) against the corrupt police is shared, in part or in whole, with Dept. of Justice, BC Attorney General, Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Quebec Premier’s Office, and LSLAP legal group for correction.
!
The general background to this complaint is : a. ) There is a moral deficit between what is required by the rule of law and what is fulfilled by the law enforcement officers/makers. The Canadian police ( excl. RCMP in this complaint ) said one thing and did another. For example, VPD Constable Montague stated to Vancouver Sun in April 2016 that “Canvasing for video is something investigators do in almost very incident and in many cases police manage to locate something.” But, in our case, the accused VPD officers (Aaron Ram #3059 and Deidre Wong #2865) are found to have deliberately failed to ask for footage and compel surrender of such footage with a search warrant for over 7 months in the context of :
!
i) two private cameras present in the building; ii) two Caucasians perpetrators’ illicit activities (fraud/misrepresentation and theft of luggage) being caught in the cameras and reported to the authorities. iii) the whistleblower ( “the renter”) maliciously countercharged. iv) that the footage is material to the renter’s trial dated Oct.30, 2019.
!
Other evidence in relation to determining the two Caucasian perpetrators’ responsibilities in the reported criminal offenses was either destroyed or hided from the authorities. Contrary to his/her role, Chief Constable of Professional Standard Section of Police Department intended to tolerate such misconducts and acts of obstruction of justice— when informed by a vulnerable public member .
!
b.) Such goals as damaging the (poor) defendant’s reputation, harassing the (poor) defendant, or attempting to place blame on a (poor) defendant other than the person who actually did
!
wrong are defended by the Crown. The lack of sanctions brought against these (rich or powerful) justice abusers “was the result of a number of justifications that tended to undermine the moralizations of the offence and thus minimized the response of the public and legal authorities. As such, there was no moral challenge to the policies being carried out by the Crown.” ( See also “First Nations in the 21st Century”, page 2)
!
c.) The low-income victim is forced into “a self-taught justice” and if not, their complaints — often lacking a legal format—are most likely to be dismissed or closed by a juridical reviewer. That is, “the law is victimizing the victim”.
! The complaint is specifically centered on the following issues: !
1.Was it morally correct for the police and Crown to countercharge the Asian whistleblower so as to stop the investigation into the Caucasians perpetrators’ illicit activities caught in a private camera?
!
Evidence 1a, 2 and 3 in “ My Answers to OPCC Investigator’s Questions” (page 1 &2) and “Report to Crown Consul” (page1-4) have found that the prosecutions of “Fraud/Misrepresentation” and “Theft of Luggage” against the two Caucasian perpetrators discontinued not because of lack of evidence, but because of the police’s obstruction into access to relevant evidence such as footage. Destroying or hiding evidence in favor of a party constituted a substantiated breach of s. 139 of Criminal Code of Canada and Police Act which authorizes a police officer to investigate a criminal offence under the “impartiality" principle:
! !
As a s police service, we must show impartiality throughout all our dealings with colleagues, partners, and members of the public. This is achieved by being unprejudiced, fair and objective. We consider different sides of a situation and ensure that each side is given equal consideration.
Canada Border Service Agency has informed that a fraudulent immigration consultant, Francois Teeasdale, is facing two charges under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). He is alleged to have provided immigration counseling services for compensation, when he is not authorized to do so. The same applies to our case. The fraudulent tenant ( Mr. Joseph Giannunzio at #203- 990 Lagoon Drive) has provided “home-based hostel services” for monetary compensation, when he is not authorized to do so. In BC, any person providing travel service or similar accommodation is subject to the Real Estate Services Act ( RESA). He and his property manger Ms. Sharon Pretty ought to face charges under the RESA and s.380 and s.322 of the Criminal Code of Canada, but no action is taken. See evidence in “ Part III: Supplementary information to Complaint to OPCC” (para 3.1 and 3.2) ) and Attachment 2 in “ Details of Complaint to OPCC” (para 14). Instead, the police continued to mislead the legal
!
authorities in “Report to Crown Consul” and other documentation by stating that “Ms. Chen’s dispute with her former landlord is fundamentally a civil, rather than a criminal, matter.”
!
2. Was the police’s refusal to take room photos, ask for footage and compel surrender of footage during the investigation /trial a breach of the law?
!
Evidence 1b in “ My answers to OPCC Investigator’s Questions” ( page 1) and line 19-22, page 4 in “Report to Crown Counsel ” have found that the police’s discretion is exercised so unreadable as to constitute a breach of s.139 of Criminal Code of Canada and the principle of natural justice in regards to“ Opportunity to present one’s case”, which states: ! The applicant (now the accused) must be provided with an opportunity to present whatever evidence they wish to be considered.
!
3. Was the footage exempted from criminal investigation? Was it the police’s deliberate failure to ask for footage or simply an oversight before and during the trial ?
!
Evidence 4 a, 4b and 4c and 4d in “ My Answers to OPCC Investigator’s Questions” and para 6-8 , Attachment 1& 3 in “ Details of Complaint to OPCC ” and para 12 in “ An appeal to BC Attorney General against the Crown Consul’s decision” have found that footage is not exempted from criminal investigation. And there is no other possibility than the police’s deliberate failure to seize the footage. Such actions constituted a substantiated breach of s.139 of Criminal Code and Section 5 of Police Act, which states:
!
(f) the police officer suppresses, tampers with or fails to disclose to an investigating officer, or to the discipline authority of a respondent, information that is material to a proceeding or potential proceeding under Part 9 of the Act.
! ! 4. Were the misleading accounts in police report “factual errors” or not? !
Evidence 5a, 5b, 8, 7a, and 7b in“My Answers to OPCC Investigator’s Questions” (page 5-7) and para 9 in “Details of Complaint to OPCC” ( page 3) have ruled out the possibility of “factual errors” in support of the police misrepresenting material facts on the report submitted to the authorities. Pursuant to section 10 of Police Act and s.139 of Criminal Code, challenging questions can be asked :
!
Why would an OPCC analyst keep asking for evidence from a complainant to support his/ her complaint while requesting no concrete evidence to support a police report ? Why would a police report submitted with no concrete evidence be approved and supported by
!
!
the Crown for a criminal charge against the vulnerable member? Who has given the police the right to arrest or search a person without sufficient causes?
5. Are the matters above evidence of malfeasance on the part of officers, and specifically that: a. the actions of officers are “intended to destroy evidence” and undermine the possibility of fair proceedings?
!
Yes, they are — 100%. All the evidence combined has shown the police’s abuse of the legal system is not only materialized in the obstruction of the legal proceedings at the criminal, civil, and family courts, but substantiated in the failure of a group of governmental agencies to respond and take action in case of violation of municipal by-laws and other statutory rules. See email correspondences with City of Vancouver, West-end MP Officer, Ministry of Children and Family Development…..
! ! Conclusion !
It is not disputed that a sufficient factual and legal foundation in support of the complainant’s allegations is built— despite it was constantly denied by the judicial reviewer.
!
In contrast, nothing in the police’s submission is provided to us suggests that this is not malfeasance on the part of police officers. Instead, ample evidence found in the circumstances ( 1-5) listed in the complaint supports that the police have tampered and hided evidence in various attempts both before and during the trial. The concerns expressed by the police and the two Caucasian perpetrators in their statements are vague and lacking in specific detail in regard to their interactions with the renter and the alleged offence of Assault ( or harassment). Their refusal to submit CCTV footage ( when it is available) or sworn testimonies before the trial judge is nonetheless another proof that their misrepresentations are made purposely, with the intent of fooling all. But, the court staff and other governmental agencies have relied upon their misrepresentations and acted disgracefully. What a huge waste in public resources !
!
In view of it, how would a judicial reviewer conclude that the complaint is inadmissible? Furthermore, how would an OPCC analyst be allowed to close a civilian complaint on the ground of “lack of evidence” when the statements and actions of the accused police and crown counsel are unjustifiable?
!
Even if in the courthouse, “the judge could not conduct a trial in such a way that the selfrepresented party could reasonably have had some apprehension as to whether the case had been prejudged before all the evidence was in. If the questions posed by the judge exceed
!
simple clarification, the judge is projecting himself into the arena, and gives rise to an appearance of bias” (— Lawyer Joseph Kary, 2013) . -Griffin v. Murnaghan (Ont. C.A.) (1994]), 113 D.L.R. (4th) 63 (C.A.) -Ross v. Hern (2004), 45 C.P.C. (5th) 107 - Solicitor "X" v. N. S. Barristers' Society, [1998] N.S.J. No. 428 ( C.A.) - Phillips v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd., [1971] 2 O.R. 637 - Hilson v. Richmond Chandler Investment Ltd. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 297,
! !
Therefore, such Notice of Inadmissibility of Complaint from OPCC or other jurisdiction, if any, is considered to be discriminatory and obstructive and shall be squashed in the writer’s cost.
!
In conclusion, having reviewed the police’s response and the relevant information, I conclude that :
!
a.
! b. ! c.
! !
With proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused police officers have exercised their independent discretion, in substantiated manner, against the law pursuant to s.139 of Criminal Code of Canada, and constituted misconducts as defined pursuant to section 5, 10 and 77 of the Police Act. Aggravated damage is caused to both individuals and public agencies. If a case defended by a professional lawyer can set a precedent in case law to push for a legislative change, a self-represented case defended by the victim himself/herself must be able to do so in the courthouse — especially when the governments encourage selfhelp services in various legal programs. This submission serves such a purpose.
_____________________________________________! All of which is respectfully submitted on Jan 8, 2020.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! Details of Complaint to Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner ( OPCC) !
This is a formal complaint against police officer Reniga ( no family name disclosed in the court paper) in relation to court file # 28767. The police officers involved are accused of violation of Section 5, 10 in Code of Professional Conduct Regulation Of Police Act, and s.139 Criminal Code of Canada. We request OPCC to investigate this matter ASAP and stop the corrupt police abusing the legal system. All the facts stated in this complaint can be verified with Lawyer Michael Bertoldi and LSLAP group in Vancouver.
!
Part I : Facts 1. On May 16, 2019, I reported to police “ unlicensed short-term rental fraud” and “theft of luggage” by the property manager at 990 Lagoon Drive.
!
2. Pending the investigation, the involved police officer(s) did not allow me to access the footage of surveillance camera installed in the premise nor use cellphone to collect such onsite evidences as room pictures or video-tapping of their performance.
!
3. During the arrest, the police officer(s) took a piece of signed rental document confirming my residence and rent payment at the unit and subsequently removed me from the premise. They never intended to return the document to me.
!
4. Later, the police officer(s) compiled a police report full of misleading facts about 1) the actual number of roommates —1 female traveler instead of 3 stayed in the unit; 2) an assault that actually never happened ; 3) my character; and 4) the existence of private surveillance camera on the site.
!
5. Pending the trial, the police has deliberately failed to ask for footage and compel surrender with a search warrant when: 1) A formal request for footage was made on the May 30, 2019 hearing; 2) UBC Law Student at LSLAP confirmed that footage is material to the trial. Six months later, one day before the trial, the crown counsel responded no footage nor a search warrant was pursued by the police .
! Part II : Reasons for accusing the police for abuse of authority and obstructing justice. ! ! ! !! !! ! ( Page 1of 6 )!
!
6. In North America, domestic video surveillance ( or digital information) is not exempted from criminal investigation. In an article published by Vancouver Sun in Apr 2016, “ Canvasing for video is something investigators do in almost very incident and in many cases police manage to locate something.” They police can ask for footage and compel surrender with a search warrant or seize it when they fear the evidence may be destroyed. But, in our case, the police officer(s) has not only deliberately failed me as the vulnerable Asian defendant to access the footage before and during the trial, but showed no intent of exhausting their effort to obtain the footage. Nor, they correctly informed the crown consul that there exists surveillance cameras in the premise or unit, be real or fake. Instead , the police have allowed the Caucasian property manager and Mr. Giannunzio to dump false accusations for defamation of my character. It is more clear than not that the police officers’ actions are intended to destroy evidence and further the renter’s venerability to a fair proceeding. ( See attachment 1)
!
7. In our case, we shall never accept the police’s and the property manager’s excuses of “ no footage ” “ the camera is broken” or even “a faked camera" other than obstructing justice. First, the two camera, are separate, one installed to the inside wall of Unit#203 and the other along the premise’s public entrance. They cannot be broken at the same time. Second, the property manager’s services is regulated by the real estate Act which authorizes her to supervise the property safely. She must have due diligence to install a real surveillance camera and remain it working and repair it ASAP if broken. If she ever deceived all to instal a faked camera, she must be removed from her current post as a property manager. Third, even if the camera is authentic, it is worth questioning: why the property manger locked a renter’s property in a corner outside camera surveillance and risked to be provoked of an unseen criminal offence? Isn’ she who knows the property better than anyone? Isn’t she who wants to be protected? We cannot describe her intent or action as such to be anything other than “ malicious”.
!
8.Pursuant to the Real Estate Services Act ( RESA), a person who is providing travel services by way of arranging short-term vacation rentals, or similar accommodation, is likely required to be licensed under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. City of Vancouver has confirmed that neither the premise (990 Lagoon Drive) nor Mr.Giannunzio is liscensed to conduct such home-based “hostel business " ( or short -term rental) as putting three short-term renters in one bedroom when the apartment is not subleased. The illicit rental practice is further evidenced due to the fact that my rental contract (Page 2 of 6)
!
! !!
is not honored. And two cameras have recorded such an illegal practice. This is the real reason why there is “ no footage”. I was asked to leave the premise right after I blowed the whistle to West-end MP office and LSLAP program on May 14, 2019. It is more clear than not that the charge was laid to cover up for the property manager and Mr.Giannunzio and punish the whistle blower. ( See attachment 2)
!
Harmful consequences of a “fabricated” police report about a tenancy: 9. By falsely sating that 1 roommate rather than 3 lived in the one bedroom, the police has arbitrarily changed the nature of tenancy and felt free to evict a tenant as a “roommate” in case of transferred tenancy.
!
10. By falsely stating that 1 roommate rather than 3 lived in the one-bedroom apartment, the police has arbitrarily changed an illegal short-term rental to a legal one, which is to fail the Inspection Unit of City of Vancouver to supervise suspicious acts in violation of municipal by-law and/or Real Estate Services Act ( RESA) which result in : 1) no immediate acton taken to stop the next victim; 2) distorted municipal policies in housing and construction.
!
11. By falsely stating that 1 roommate rather than 3 lived in the one-bedroom apartment, the police left a 2-year kid unprotected. She’d be forced to live in the corner of the living room of a one-bed room apartment shared with three strangers. It is certainly not a safe parenting environment, considering high-level risks for conflict, house fire, quarrels, incompatible living habits, etc. And the requested footage would suggest that the father of the kid, i.e.Mr. Giannunzio, is the one who “abused” his kid on a daily basis.
!
A Case of Public Interest 12. My case has a public interest. It indicates an institutional failure in defense of justice in Canada. No sustainable housing, legal services and public resources to support a vulnerable member to fight corrupt police. Worse than not, even the crown counsel sustained malicious prosecution in a subtle way. A criminal charge like this — with no merit at all — is stayed when: 1) The accuser’s burden of proof is never relieved; 2) Criteria of “Withdrawn” is met. That is, the crown consul showed intent to sustain police corruption and acts of violation of municipal by-law . How could we set a precedence in case law to fail more? (Page 3 of 6)
!
!
!
13. Applicable laws Section 5 and 10 of Code of Professional Conduct Regulation Of Police Act : (e) the police officer fails to report to an officer whose duty it is to receive the report, or to Crown counsel, any information or evidence, either for or against any prisoner or defendant, that is material to an alleged offence under an enactment of British Columbia or Canada, or (f) the police officer suppresses, tampers with or fails to disclose to an investigating officer, or to the discipline authority of a respondent, information that is material to a proceeding or potential proceeding under Part 9 of the Act. Abuse of authority 10 For the purposes of section 4 (1) (f), a police officer commits the disciplinary default of abuse of authority if the police officer (a) without good and sufficient cause arrests, detains or searches a person, S. 139 of Criminal Code of Canada 139. (1) Every one who wishfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding
! 14. Attachment !
1 __ Private Cameras installed at 990 Lagoon Drive
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (Page 4 of 6)
!
!
!
(Page 5 of 6)
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3__ the Crown consul's email confirmation of no footage!
! ---------- Forwarded message ---------! From: Salaysay, Mary AG:EX <Mary.Salaysay@gov.bc.ca>! Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 1:38 PM! Subject: RE: R v Chen, Court File # 28767! To: Chris Wong <cwong.lslap@gmail.com>!
! Hi Chris,! ! I spoke to the complainant. She advises there is no video available in the area.! At this stage, it appears that we will be proceeding to trial.!
! Please contact me if you have any questions.! ! Regards,!! ! Mary! ! Mary Salaysay!! Crown Counsel! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
(Page 6 of 6)!
!
15. Part III: Supplementary Info ( 8 pages) to Compliant to OPCC dated Nov.20, 2019 ( 7 pages)
!
1.Complainant: QIU LING CHEN ( Naturalized Canadian, Female, Asian Chinese Visual Artist ) Accused : Aaron Ram ( #3059) and Deidre Wong ( #2865) ( Note: The VPD non-emergency line operator refused to disclose which police department the above police officers serve, though most likely, they are associated with the division on Cambie street. ) 2. Description of Incident
1) On May 2, 2019, I moved in a master bedroom occupied by two female travelers ( a Torontonian known as Jojo and a German girl known as Emily May) at #203-990 Lagoon Drive. In the meantime, the tenant known as Mr. Joseph Giannunzio and his 2-year kid lived in the corner of the unit’s living room with us.
!
2) On May 6, 2019, after 5- night stay, I was asked to move out by the property manager, Ms. Sharon Pretty, and Mr. Giannunzio, who refused to get me refunded. Instead, Mr. Giannunzio remained that no agreement or sublease was entered into with me or the other two travelers after taking our money. [ Referred to line 9-14, 42, page 3, “Report to Crown Counsel ” in the Disclosure ].
!
3) My paid portion is rent ($676/month) plus deposit ($337.50) and costs of a new mattress($269.36). Other girls stayed. And three air mattresses that can be easily deflated in case of whistle blowing and municipal inspection also stayed for Mr. Giannunzio to hide such a deceitful rental practice.
! !
(page 1 of 8)!
! !
4) Between May 6 and May 14, 2019, I sought legal help from West-end MP office and LSLAP program while temporarily staying in the neighbor’s Unit#209 as a guest. At 1:21 pm on May 16, 2019, I was informed by the neighbor Aaron A. Day via a phone call that Ms. Pretty removed my luggage from his Unit# 209 and locked them into a laundry room storage without my consent or notice, and that she refused to return my luggage.
!
5) Her offensive manner as such resulted in me calling the Open Door Law lawyer and police for help. At approximately 6:30 pm, two police officers Aaron Ram ( #3059) and Deidre Wong ( #2865) located me on Robson street. They refused to take notes on my criminal reports about “ Fraud” and “ Theft of luggage”, but kept criticizing me for being stupidly into such a rental relationship. However, they decided to escort me to pick up my luggage at 990 Lagoon Drive. On the site, they did not help me to retrieve my tenancy (with either Unit) or luggage, but arrested me for an assault that they did not witness. The arrest was performed in a humiliating way in violation of both disciplinary code and criminal code. [Referred to Facts 1-5 stated in the submitted “Complaint” ]
!
6) PC RAM did take away a signed lease without returning. [ Referred to line 32, page3, “Report to Crown Counsel”]. PC RAM did check the rental room [ Referred to line 38-46, page 3, “ Report to Crown Counsel” ] , but lied about the actual numbers of renters and living conditions to the crown counsel in police report. PC RAM and PC WONG falsely stated “Emily May is a tenant to the unit" [ line 42, page 1, “Report to Crown”]. At the time of incident, Emily May is not a tenant on the lease, but one of the three renters on working visa ( #cell phone: 4917684374197). The police officers also deliberately omitted my account of 3 females living in the master room [ Referred to line 25-28, page 2, “Report to Crown Counsel” ]
!
3. Claims for opening criminal investigations into a fraud and theft.
! ( page 2 of 8)
3.1 The “Fraud” issue We argue that Mr. Giannunzio did commit “Fraud” with an intent to defraud a traveler of rent and deposit through: i) misrepresenting a sublease or roommate rental via text message and purposefully denying or destroying the lease signed after the money is taken and then ; ii) using a deceptive account of “ no lease but a trial period open to eviction at any time ”. [ Referred to line 11-14, page 3, “Report to Crown Counsel” ]
!
1) In case of transferred tenancy to the three renters/ travellers, Mr. Giannunzio’s action violated the building’s rules and regulations about “no more than one roommate can be taken”. [ Referred to line 16-25, page 3, “Report to Crown Counsel” ]
!
2) In case of home-based hostel business e.g. short-term vacation rentals or similar accommodation, Mr. Giannunzio’s action violated municipal by-law /the Real Estate Services Act ( RESA) which states:
!
a person who is providing travel services by way of arranging short-term vacation rentals, or similar accommodation, is likely required to be licensed under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.
!
City of Vancouver has confirmed that neither the premise (Willowstan Apartments at 990 Lagoon Drive) nor Mr. Giannunzio is liscensed to conduct such home-based “hostel business"or short-term rental or similar accommodation. [ Referred to Attachment_ 2 in the Complaint ]. The misrepresentation is made purposely, with the intent of fooling all.
!
3.2 The “Theft” issue 1) We argue that Ms. Pretty did commit Theft. Without my consent, she did secretly move my luggage from Unit #209 where no “roommate eviction” exists. Nor, she obtained a court order to legitimatize the removal . The removal of luggage is not a ( page 3 of 8)!
!
result of a roommate eviction but the result of Ms. Pretty’s malicious intent to manipulate the situation. The return of luggage does not change the fact that she temporarily owned the property through deceptive accounts about the tenancy and a criminal offence.
!
2) Applicable law: 322. Theft Time when theft completed (a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it; (b) (2) A person commits theft when, with intent to steal anything, he moves it or
!
causes it to move or to be moved, or begins to cause it to become movable.
In both cases, the invalid police officers sustained their criminal intents.
!
16. Disclaimer about new attachment “ Report to Crown Counsel” According to a phone call around 11:37 2019-11-21 , the crown officer responded that when the case is closed, disclosure of the materials enclosed in the “Disclosure” is exempted from the written consent of a crown counsel. Thus, a scanned copy of “ Report to Crown Counsel” and other details included in the Disclosure are emailed to OPCC in support of our complaint. See OPCC email requirement for disclosure of case information as below: RE: Our complaint to OPCCWed, Nov 20, 2019 9:51 am Info-OPCC (info@opcc.bc.ca)To:you Details Dear Ms. Chen, When the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner (OPCC) receives a misconduct complaint, there must be sufficient detail that would allow for the opening of a file. Although you have provided an account of the events, we require the following details in order to open a registered complaint: ·
The police department involved
·
A description of the incident, in particular, any information you can provide that helps us to better understand the nature of
the police misconduct you are reporting. Speculative information is not sufficient in this regard. Your description of specific instances of police officers interacting with you in this manner would be sufficient to open a file.
!
This information can be provided by responding to this email. Note that the OPCC only has jurisdiction over municipal police departments in British Columbia, and not the RCMP. As we have not received sufficient information, we can take no further action at this time. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Administration|Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner| Tel: 250-356-7458 Fax:250-356-6503 www.opcc.bc.ca
! ( page 4 of 8 ) !
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
I, Qiu Ling Chen, on behalf of all suffering victims, declare under oath that all the facts stated in my answers are true, to the best of my recollection :
! !
Questions relating to document “Details of Complaint to the OPCC”! ! 1. In numbered paragraph 2:! a. you refer to “pending the investigation”. Which investigation do you mean?!
!
My answer: The investigation of “Assault” ( despite I called in the police for investigating “Fraud” and “Theft of luggage”).
Report to Crown Counsel disclosed
that upon arriving the premise, the police understood that the Caucasian accuser Ms. Pretty and tenant Mr. Gianunzio caused me, a single woman on the job training, to be homeless and jobless and denied access to my luggage. The police also understood that my response, be offensive or not, stemmed from the accusers’ fraudulent scheme that created the scene for conflict. Common sense tells that this life-threatening situation suffered by me as a vulnerable victim is considered more urgent than a charge of “Assault” when the accuser actually has no domestic relationship with me. And the presence of surveillance camera would easily determine the responsibilities of the party who committed “fraud” or “theft of luggage” to harm me. Then, why the police and Crown proceeded with investigation into an unseen offence of “Assault” rather than the ones that can be seen on the screen ? The only plausible answer would be: they have abused their authority and provided discriminatory services against the weak class people or people with skin color. The “impartiality" principle suggests that in my case, it is morally wrong for the police and crown counsel to take the investigation of “Assault” overriding that of “ Fraud” and “ Theft of Luggage”.
! !
b. Did you expressly ask them to permit you to take photos or record video? What was their response?!
!
My answer : Yes. But, the police officers appeared very uneasy and said “No” . They threatened with an “obstruct warning" if I insist in doing so.[ referred to line 19-22, page 4, “Report to Crown Counsel” ]. ( page 1of 8)
!
2. In numbered paragraph 3 you say that officers “never intended to return the document to you”. How do you know what the officers intended at the time?!
!
My answer: The police learned from the property manager that this piece of document is important evidence: i) to determine the tenant’s responsibility in the reported rental fraud and caused damage to the renter at the courthouse; ii) to determine that the tenant’s misrepresentation is made purposefully — for example, “there was no lease but a trial period” [ Referred to line 11-14, page 3, “Report to Crown Counsel” and ; iii ) to discharge the property’s right from removing the renter and her luggage from the premise prior to a court order.
!
However, to cover up for the Caucasian tenant, the police and the property office found no other way to seize or destroy this evidence except through an arrest. Specifically, the camera along the front door would have captured how the male police officer took from me a piece of handwritten and signed lease ( as described in line 32-33, page 3, “Report to Crown Counsel” ) and never returned it to me at the site. Such a malicious intent was further evidenced when I could not find the document among returned personal stuff ( which was seized by the police during the arrest) after the next day’s bail hearing.
!
If the police acted impartially and fairly with intent to return the document to me, the above would not happen.
!
3. In numbered paragraph 4 you refer to misleading facts about the existence of a private surveillance camera on the site. What misleading facts are you referring to?!
!
My answer: The police advised in police report “no CCTV in the storage unit or laundry room” [ referred to line 38-39, page 4, “Report to Crown Counsel” ] , but never mentioned the existence of private surveillance cameras along the public entrance and within the unit—as clearly showed in the pictures. This is misleading. It misled the court that there was no other source to obtain the truth and evidence than the Caucasian accuser’s oral statement. It misled the court that a police officer does not have to investigate all the details of an offence — especially the one they did not witness — prior to laying a criminal charge against the vulnerable one. This is not only arbitrary, but also discriminatory.
!
Challenging questions can be asked: What led the police to conclude that an assault happened in the storage unit other than in the lobby or the unit wherein a private camera is installed? What led the police to believe that the Caucasian accuser was
!
( page 2 of 8)!
telling a truth other than a lie? What if the requested footage can prove that there was no an assault but just an all-party’s phone talk besides the front door on May 16, 2019?
!
It is found that the accusers feared to testify or to be cross examined before the trial judge. This gives rise to a reasonable concern that the accusers (both the property manager Ms.Pretty and tenant Mr. Gianunzio) lied when submitting their statements. If every police officer investigates a case like this — making a judgement simply based on a party’s oral statements, the Canadian courthouses would be piled up with malicious prosecutions — it may already be so.
! !
4. In numbered paragraph:! ! a. you say police “deliberately failed to ask for footage etc” – how do you know the police act was deliberate, rather than simply an oversight, for example? Which officer do you say failed to take action?!
!
My answer: First, the two surveillance cameras are too visible to be ignored, as seen in the pictures ( see Attachment 1, page 4, Details of Complaint to OPCC ). A civilian like me wouldn't ignore them, how would a well-trained police officer ignore them? If a police officer ever failed to ask for footage simply because of an oversight, he/she shall be immediately removed from his/her post as a law enforcement officer for not having any basic investigative skills.
!
Second, even if it is an oversight, the normal response of a police officer would be— carefully check the premise again for private cameras and compel surrender with a search warrant after he/she learned the renter’s repeated request for footage. Under the “impartiality” principle, the police is obligated to do so. But, in our case, it has been five months that the police and Crown did not take any such effort to seize the footage as requested by the accused —despite they were clearly informed on the May 30 hearing that: 1) there exists surveillance cameras and; 2) “the information of footage could be useful to the accused in making full answer and defence”. ( In particular, LSLAP has informed the crown counsel that the footage is material to the trial— for example, to prove the accuser’s malicious intent to lay the charge.)
!
Third, common sense tells us that the one who tells a lie or hides information is often the wrongdoer. In our case, I, the accused, is the one who insisted in disclosing information regarding footage, while Ms. Pretty and Mr. Gianunzio, the accusers, are the ones who intentionally hided such information. Isn’t bizarre —-one expressed a security concern but refused to submit surveillance camera data for proof or
!
( page 3 of 8)!
protection? However, the accuser’s response turns to be logic if you look at it from the perspective of a wrongdoer. Both the property manager and tenant profited from illicit rental activities for months or a year. But one day, one of the renters blew the whistle. To avoid the city’s housing inspection and legal penalties, the wrongdoers must destroy all the evidence in surveillance cameras or documentation while damaging the whistleblower’s reputation for reprisal. Then came a series of “unusual" facts showed in my case: i) the document or evidence in favor of the renter’s pleading was seized during an arrest and never returned; ii) the submission of camera footage was constantly obstructed by the wrongdoers who took full control of the private surveillance cameras and ; iii) the accusers’ statements were never sworn truth or cross examined before the trial judge.
!
To conclude, the accusers’ response is consistent with my defence that the charge was laid with a malicious intent to punish me as the whistleblower — who reported on the property's illicit rental activities captured in the two cameras. And when the police sustained the landlord’s malicious intent as such , “a deliberate failure to ask for footage and compel surrender ” is seen.
! ! b. What was the Crown’s response to the request for footage?! !
My answer : It has been 5 months that the crown counsel did not respond to our request for footage made on the May 30, 2019 appearance hearing , through which the crown consul is clearly informed that “the information could be useful to the accused in making full answer and defence”. In particular, LSLAP has informed the crown counsel that the footage is material to the Oct.30 trial— for example, to prove the accuser’s malicious intent to lay the charge.
!
One day before the trial, the crown consul emailed the LSLAP student an reply of “no footage”— which is never testified or cross examined before the trial judge. [ Attachment 3, page 6, Details of Complaint to OPCC] The crown counsel is not exempted from duty to seize footage as evidence. The principle of natural justice pertaining to“ Duty to consider all the evidence”states: The decision maker is required to consider all of the relevant evidence and information pertaining to a specific case.
!
His/Her discretion is thus challenged in the appeal against his/her determination to “stay”, rather than “withdraw”, the charge. See also an appeal to the office of Attorney General dated Dec.23, 2019.
!
( page 4 of 8)!
c. Did the court say anything or make any order regarding the footage?!
!
My Answer: Neither the LSLAP student and I received a court order regarding the footage.
! d. Were any officers present during the hearing?! !
My answer: Neither the police nor the accusers attended the Oct 30 trial and gave out testimonies. The relief of burden of proof has failed on the accuser’s part.
!
5. In relation to numbered paragraph 9:! a. it is my understanding that you were evicted before the police report was drafted – is this correct?!
!
My answer: “Eviction” is a legal term often applied to the landlord-tenant dispute or a roommate situation in North America where the head tenant shared an apartment ( and a portion of rent) with someone whose name is not on the lease.
!
But, in our case, the tenant’s tenancy has been transferred to the three short-term roommates whose monthly payment already exceeded the amount required by the tenant’s lease signed with the property office ( around $2000). Due to the fact that the tenant refused to move out with his kid nor had his 3 roommates officially registered as “the new tenants” in case of transferred tenancy, the nature of tenancy has been altered to “an illegal home-based hostel business” that violated both municipal by-law and Real Estate Services Act ( RESA). Running a covert hostel business, the tenant stayed free and profited from unclaimed rental incomes from short-term renters. Even if in case of transferred tenancy, the tenant’s action violated the building’s rules and regulations about “ no more than one roommate can be taken”. [ Referred to line 16-25, page 3, “Report to Crown Counsel” ]
!
This is the real reason why the accuser, the property manager of the building, responded “ no footage” in that the tenant’s illicit rental practice of “3 short-term travelers shared the one-bedroom unit with the tenant and his kid” were being captured by the cameras. As stated in Para 3.1, Part III, “ Supplementary Info” , we argue that the tenant Mr. Joseph Giannunzio did commit “ Fraud” with intent to defraud a traveler of rent and deposit through deceptive account. Fraud is a criminal offence in Canada and falls in the jurisdiction of the police department. But, in our case, the police has deliberately failed to act. Therefore, I am removed from the premise as a victim of a fraud scheme sustained by the corrupt police and property manager.
!
( page 5 of 8)!
b. Has anyone relied on the police report’s error, insofar as it relates to the nature of the tenancy agreement, as far as you are aware?!
!
My answer: As a suffering victim, I urged the City of Vancouver , Ministry of Children and Family Development and BC Family Court ( where the tenant Joseph Giannunzio’s divorce case is pending) to conduct housing inspection and take immediate actions. I assume that their failure to act is the result of the misleading police report together with undue influence from the builder Chartwell Construction.
! ! Questions relating to “Part III: Supplementary Info”! !
6. In relation to numbered paragraph 5, you say that officers refused to take notes regarding your criminal reports about fraud and theft of luggage. The report to crown counsel states that they advised you that these were civil matters. Did the officers so advise you? !
!
My answer: Yes. They have shocked me by not taking down details of a civilian’s criminal report. They also shocked me by brushing off a vulnerable victim like a piece of shit while attentive to a White offender like a dog. The way they discriminated me against my skin color, Asian looking, financial status, and national background is truly hurtful.
!
7. In relation to numbered paragraph 6:! a. you say that the officer “lied” – how do you know it was a lie, and not simply an error?!
!
My answer: At Roberson Street, I made a criminal report to the police officers that 3 short-term renters living in the one-bedroom apartment as a result of the tenant’s fraudulent scheme. They refused to take down this information. At the premise, I offered the police officers the cellphone camera to do a room check and take pictures of the unlawful rental condition. They refused to do so. Then, I requested the police officers to check the camera footage for proof. Again, they refused to do it. Without any investigation, how come the police concluded only one tenant named Emily May occupied in the bedroom? Who has allowed the police to submit a police report without a proper way of investigating or concrete proof such as videos, pictures and footage ? Who is to ensure the police officers’ integrity in a criminal investigation ?
!
In our case, the police did not attach any picture, video or footage to support their statements about the tenancy in a context where the two private cameras were present
!
( page 6 of 8)!
in the premise. Nor were their statements testified or cross examined before the trial judge. This is extremely unusual. It raised a reasonable concern that the police officers were acting in a dishonest manner. It is reasonable to conclude that a police statement made without investigation or attached with concrete evidence, when it is available, can be deemed as a lie rather than an error .
!
My experience tells the Canadian police officers could charge a (vulnerable) person without sufficient causes. And they can appear to be unreliable, malicious, discriminatory, and manipulative. It is thus advised that all the police reports be attached with concrete proof such as videos, pictures, and CCTV footage when a cellphone camera can easily perform all these tasks, too. If no such evidence, pls do not write a statement that would alter the nature of a case.
!
b. How do you know that officers deliberately omitted your account of 3 females living in the master room?!
! My answer : Pls refer the answer to Question 7 a. ! ! !
General questions:! a) Have you been charged with assault only, or something else as well?!
!
My answer: I have not been charged with other offence in BC. But, I did express concern to Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing that the police’s abuse of authority would obstruct the government’s goal in housing reform in that distorted information in the police report would definitely fail the government to supervise suspicious acts in violation of municipal by-laws and housing policies and resulted in distorted public polices.
!
Between 2013 and 2108, similar misconducts by the Toronto police have resulted in me being maliciously charged with “Criminal Harassment” when I reported “ Theft of luggage” (worth of $50,000) against a Caucasian landlord Darrin Zern, together with my two witnesses (who were also a victim of theft of luggage by their former landlords). In emergency shelters, many homeless people suffered the same issues as I do. It appears to us that the Canadian police officers have been a “professional” abuser of the legal system without constraints. Their abuse shall not be tolerated again by the public.
! !
( page 7 of 8)!
! b) Please could you explain the relevance of the video footage you say police have not obtained, bearing in mind that the report to crown counsel records that the police noted that there was no camera in the storage unit or laundry room which would have captured the assault?!
!
My answer : I insist that there no assault actually happened in the storage unit, the laundry room, the lobby or elsewhere in the building on May 16, 2019. The footage is useful in making full answer and defence that the charge is laid with a malicious intent to punish me as the whistleblower —- who reported on the landlords’ illicit rental activities.
!
The footage would have captured: i) “three short-term renters” ( as opposed to “one tenant” reported by the police) lived in the unit together with the tenant and his 2-year old daughter; ii ) the male police officer took from me a signed lease in documentation and never returned it to me — an action amounting to abuse of process and evidence destruction; iii) an all-party’s phone talk ( at 1:21pm) was made in the lobby area, as opposed to the property manager’s allegation of being assaulted in the storage unit.
!
As mentioned before, the accusers’ responses —both before the police and the trial judge— do not qualify them for being a “victim” of an Assault or any other alleged safety concern, but more of a “wrongdoer" who exhausted their means to hide illicit rental activities with intent to escape legal penalties — all of which is facilitated by the corrupt police in Canada.
! ! [ All of which is respectfully submitted on Dec 27, 2019.] ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( page 8 of 8)!
!